SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

V.B.GUPTA, VINAY KUMAR
TOMY – Appellant
Versus
EAPEN GEORGE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. D'Souza Philip K., Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, Advocate, for the Respondent

ORDER

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member - These revision petitions arise from the common order dated 29.11.2010 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short as 'state Commission') in Revision Petition Nos. 19 and 20 of 2005, filed before the State Commission.

2. Along with these petitions, applications seeking condonation of delay of 85 days have also been filed.

3. Brief facts are that petitioners/complainants attracted by a new technology propounded by the respondent/opposite party in constructing concrete building roofs using beams and shells only, instead of the conservative type of reinforced concrete technology, which assured considerable decrease in cost of construction had constructed, a residential building during 2002 as per the new scheme and using a residence since 15.8.2002. After two months during rains in October, cracks appeared near the beams and leakage was found. On the next day, respondent was informed and he effected certain repairs. But it was not of any use. Repeated demands were made to the respondent to rectify the defects but nothing was done. So, petitioners approached District Forum for directions to the respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top